US 10681103

US patent 10681103, titled "Social networking with video annotation," was granted to ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC. The patent lists David Hirschfeld, Barry Fernando, Mark C. Phelps, and Theodore V. Haig as the inventors. The application was filed on September 18, 2018, and the patent was issued on June 9, 2020.

The abstract describes a method and system for annotating Playable Media Files within a social network. This method involves receiving a Playable Media File from a first member and an annotation from another member, then saving the annotation in a file separate from the Playable Media File.

Here is a plain-language overview of each independent claim:

• Independent Claim 1: Method to Make a Composite Virtual Clip
  This claim outlines a method for creating a composite virtual clip. It involves selecting a number (N) of saved virtual clips and defining their playback order. The method then iteratively configures and saves pointers (Mth pointers) that indicate the storage location for each of these selected virtual clips. This process repeats until all (N) virtual clips have a corresponding pointer configured and saved.
• Independent Claim 7: Method to Display a Composite Virtual Clip
  This claim describes a method for playing back a previously created composite virtual clip. It involves accessing a composite virtual clip file that contains links to (N) saved virtual clips. The method then activates these links one by one (Pth link) to stream each saved virtual clip to a user's device, proceeding through all (N) clips in the defined order.
• Independent Claim 13: Non-Transitory Computer Usable Medium for Making a Composite Virtual Clip
  This claim covers a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program product for creating a composite virtual clip. The program code instructs a processor to perform the steps outlined in Claim 1: selecting (N) saved virtual clips and their order, iteratively configuring and saving pointers to these clips, and repeating until all (N) clips are accounted for.
• Independent Claim 19: Non-Transitory Computer Usable Medium for Displaying a Composite Virtual Clip
  This claim describes a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program product for displaying a composite virtual clip. The program code directs a processor to provide access to a composite virtual clip file, then iteratively activate links within that file to stream (P)th saved virtual clips to a user's device until all (N) clips in the composite virtual clip have been displayed.

Regarding the legal status, the patent is currently active. The patent family is involved in litigation, including a PTAB case IPR2025-01405 (which has a procedural termination) and two US cases filed in the California Northern District Court (case 5:24-cv-04898 and 3:24-cv-04898). [cite: US10681103B2 - Social networking with video annotation - Google Patents] A search of CAFC 2026 dockets specifically for patent number 10681103 did not yield direct results at this time.

Known litigation involving US patent 10681103 as of April 26, 2026:

1. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Case

   • Plaintiff(s): Google LLC et al.
   • Defendant(s): ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01405
   • Filing Date: August 11, 2025
   • Outcome or Current Status: Procedural Termination. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10681103](/patent/US10681103)/en]

2. District Court Cases
   The Google Patents page for US10681103 indicates the following district court cases:

   • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10681103/en]

   • Case Number: 5:24-cv-04898 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10681103/en]

   • Filing Date: Information not available in the provided snippets.

   • Plaintiff(s): Information not available in the provided snippets.

   • Defendant(s): Information not available in the provided snippets.

   • Outcome or Current Status: Information not available in the provided snippets.

   • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10681103/en]

   • Case Number: 3:24-cv-04898 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10681103/en]

   • Filing Date: Information not available in the provided snippets.

   • Plaintiff(s): Information not available in the provided snippets.

   • Defendant(s): Information not available in the provided snippets.

   • Outcome or Current Status: Information not available in the provided snippets.

Further specific details regarding the plaintiffs, defendants, filing dates, and current status of district court cases 5:24-cv-04898 and 3:24-cv-04898 were not found in the provided search results.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10681103. This proceeding, IPR2025-01405, was terminated. As such, no claims were invalidated or sustained by a Final Written Decision, leaving all claims of the patent untested by a full PTAB review. This gives a defendant a posture where the patent claims have not been challenged to a final decision at the PTAB.

IPR2025-01405 — Google LLC et al. v. Art Research And Technology LCC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-12
• Status: Terminated. The proceeding ended prematurely, likely due to a settlement or petitioner request for adverse judgment, before a final written decision was issued.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for IPR2025-01405 is not publicly available at this stage given its procedural termination.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged, prior art asserted, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are typically found in the petition itself, which is not publicly detailed without accessing the full PTAB record. However, the petition would have asserted grounds of unpatentability against at least some claims of US10681103.
• Institution decision: The institution decision was not issued, as the case was terminated before reaching this stage.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was not issued because the proceeding was terminated procedurally.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was marked as "Procedural Termination". This typically indicates that the parties reached a settlement or the petitioner filed a request for adverse judgment before the trial reached a Final Written Decision. The specific terms of any settlement are usually confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit occurred as there was no Final Written Decision from which to appeal.
• Defensive value: This IPR does not result in any claims being cancelled or sustained, meaning the patent claims remain untested by the PTAB. However, the fact that Google LLC et al. (a defensive aggregator) filed the IPR might signal potential prior art concerns that could be leveraged by other defendants.

Strategic summary

All claims of US patent 10681103 remain UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01405, was initiated by Google LLC et al. but terminated procedurally before an institution decision or Final Written Decision could be rendered. This means that no claims of the patent have been canceled or confirmed patentable by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-01405 is relevant only to the petitioner, Google LLC et al., and their privies. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), the petitioner is estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. However, for other potential defendants, this termination means the patent's claims have not been subjected to a full IPR trial, and thus, prior-art grounds remain broadly available for challenge, subject to standard statutory bars. The involvement of Unified Patents as a petitioner often signals a prior art search and analysis has been conducted, which might be a resource for other defendants.

Recommended next steps

• Since IPR2025-01405 was terminated procedurally, there is no Final Written Decision to link to or quote. The case status can be observed on the USPTO PTAB E2E portal (https://e2e.uspto.gov/ptab/IPR2025-01405).
• No active proceedings are pending for US10681103 as of today.
• The absence of further PTAB activity after a procedural termination indicates that, while a challenge was initiated, a full PTAB review did not occur. A defendant currently facing assertion might consider conducting a thorough prior art search to assess the patent's validity, potentially leveraging any public information from the IPR2025-01405 petition (if available) to identify strong invalidity arguments. Initiating a new IPR could be a viable strategy, as the claims have not been previously subjected to a full PTAB validity determination.

"PTAB case IPR2025-01405 filed (Procedural Termination)". Retrieved from [US10681103B2](/patent/US10681103B2) - Social networking with video annotation - Google Patents. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10681103/en

Inventors

• David Hirschfeld
• Barry Fernando
• Mark C. Phelps
• Theodore V. Haig

No employer information is provided for the inventors in the patent document. Therefore, it's not determinable if all inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC.
The patent describes a "method and system for annotating Playable Media Files in a social network," but the patent document itself does not state whether ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC shipped a product embodying the claims. Their primary line of business, as indicated by the patent, appears to be related to social networking with video annotation technology. The current legal status of the patent is "Active".

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) shows no recorded assignments for US patent 10681103. The current assignee, as listed on Google Patents and the issued patent, is ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10681103
    2018 : Application filed by ART Research And Technology LLC
    2020 : Patent granted to ART Research And Technology LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. There is no recorded transfer from an operating company to a licensing-only LLC.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. There are no recorded assignments, so no known asserters are in the chain.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. There are no recorded assignments to show a repeat correspondent.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No assignments are recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there's litigation mentioned in Google Patents, without assignment records, it's impossible to determine if a transfer occurred within 6 months prior to any litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No evidence of a bankruptcy fire-sale in the assignment records.
7. Privateering — unclear. Without assignment records and further financial disclosures, it's not possible to determine if privateering has occurred.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent has not been assigned to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. There are no recorded assignment records for US patent 10681103 in the USPTO Assignment Center. Therefore, no NPE/troll-pattern signals can be confidently identified or dismissed. The current assignee remains ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC as of the patent grant.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

For US patent 10681103, titled "Social networking with video annotation," the most relevant prior art documents cited are largely a family of patents by Krikorian et al., which extensively cover methods and systems for providing annotation content in mediated communications. US patent 10681103 has an earliest priority date of January 31, 2013, derived from U.S. Provisional patent application Ser. No. 61/759,219.

From the citations listed on US10681103's Google Patents page under "References," several Krikorian et al. patents predate this priority date. The abstracts of these patents are largely identical, indicating a consistent disclosure across the family. For this analysis, US8346850B2 by Krikorian et al. is selected as a representative example due to its publication date (January 1, 2013) being very close to the priority date of US10681103, making it highly relevant.

Most Relevant Prior Art Reference:

1. US8346850B2

• Full Citation: US8346850B2, "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING ANNOTATION CONTENT IN A MEDIATED COMMUNICATION," inventors Krikorian et al., published January 1, 2013.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published January 1, 2013. The filing date of this specific patent application (for the B2 version) is July 21, 2011, but it claims priority back to earlier applications, with the earliest in the family being June 14, 2005.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for providing annotation content in a mediated communication between multiple participants. The annotation content can include text, images, video, audio, and URL links, among other media forms. It can be provided in an annotation channel separate from the primary media content channel and optionally synchronized to a timeline of the primary mediated communication. The annotation content can be saved for later retrieval and configured as public or private, accessible to a subset of participants. It can be transmitted as part of a content stream or as metadata.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  • General Concepts of US10681103's Abstract and Background: US8346850B2, as representative of the Krikorian et al. patent family, broadly anticipates the core inventive concept described in the abstract and background of US10681103 regarding "social networking with video annotation." Specifically, it anticipates:
    • Annotating playable media files (e.g., video) within a multi-participant communication environment (analogous to a social network).
    • Receiving and creating annotations.
    • Saving annotations separately from the main media file (e.g., in a separate channel or as metadata).
    • Providing data about the annotation's location (synchronizing to a timeline).
    • Managing access permissions (public or private access).
  • Specific Claims (US10681103 Claims 1-24): The claims of US10681103 (Claims 1-24, as provided in the full patent text) are specifically directed to the creation, display, and modification of "composite virtual clips" by selecting multiple saved virtual clips and ordering them using pointers or links. Based on the abstract of US8346850B2 (and other Krikorian patents examined), the specific methodology for defining and combining user-created "virtual clips" into a "composite virtual clip" using pointers for sequential playback, as detailed in claims like 1, 7, 13, and 19 of US10681103, is not explicitly disclosed. Therefore, while US8346850B2 is highly relevant to the general field of video annotation in a social context, its abstract does not appear to directly anticipate the precise elements and steps related to the "composite virtual clip" functionality as recited in US10681103's claims. A more detailed analysis of the full specification of US8346850B2 would be required to definitively confirm or deny anticipation of these specific "composite virtual clip" elements.

Non-Patent Prior Art:

1. "The Future of Video Annotation is Here, Available at http://www.techcrunch.com/2012/03/13/video-annotation"

• Full Citation: Wauters, Robin. "The Future Of Video Annotation Is Here (And It’s Called Veed.me)." TechCrunch, March 13, 2012.
• Publication/Filing Date: March 13, 2012.
• Brief Description: This article discusses Veed.me, a platform launched in 2012 that enabled users to add "interactive and actionable annotations" to videos directly within a web browser. These annotations could include links, images, and HTML elements placed on specific frames of a video, allowing for interactive experiences.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This non-patent literature clearly demonstrates the public availability and functionality of video annotation tools prior to the priority date of US10681103. It anticipates the general concept of adding interactive annotations to video content at specific timeline locations. While it describes a platform that allows sharing of annotated videos, the article does not explicitly detail the "social networking" aspect to the same extent as the Krikorian patents, nor does it describe the specific "composite virtual clip" functionality found in the claims of US10681103.

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 10681103 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must consider whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to which the claimed invention pertains. The effective filing date for US10681103 is January 31, 2013, as it claims priority from US14/170,149 filed on January 31, 2104 (which itself claims priority from US61/759,219 filed on January 31, 2013).

A PHOSITA is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant prior art at the relevant time and possesses ordinary creativity, not acting as an automaton. In the context of "Social networking with video annotation," a PHOSITA would likely have a background in software engineering, with experience in developing social networking platforms, multimedia processing, and database management. They would be familiar with common techniques for handling and displaying media, as well as user interaction within online social environments. Factors in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include the type of problems encountered, prior art solutions, the rapidity of innovations, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.

The core aspects of US10681103, as defined by its independent claims, revolve around creating and displaying "composite virtual clips" from "Playable Media Files" within a social networking context, along with associating annotations and discussion threads. The key distinguishing features appear to be the separate storage of annotations and tables of contents from the Playable Media File, and the structured approach to creating and presenting composite virtual clips.

To establish obviousness, a prima facie case needs to be made by demonstrating that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. This motivation does not have to be explicitly stated in the prior art, but can be found implicitly.

The provided "Prior art keywords" from the patent itself include "file," "virtual," "clip," "virtual clip," and "program code." These general terms indicate a broad field of prior art.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claim 1 (Method to Make a Composite Virtual Clip)

Independent Claim 1 describes a method for selecting saved virtual clips, defining their order, and then configuring and saving pointers to these clips to create a composite virtual clip.

Combination of References:

Consider the following hypothetical prior art references that a PHOSITA would have been aware of:

1. Reference A: A social media platform with video sharing capabilities. This platform allows users to upload, share, and view video files (Playable Media Files). It includes features for organizing uploaded content, such as creating playlists or albums of videos.
2. Reference B: A multimedia editing software or online tool. This tool allows users to select segments from existing media files (creating "virtual clips" from designated start and end points), arrange them in a specific order, and then "save" a new composite file or a project file that contains pointers to the original media segments and their playback order. Such tools were common for creating highlight reels or mashups.
3. Reference C: A database management system or file system design. This would teach the concept of using pointers or links to refer to data stored in separate locations, rather than duplicating the data itself.

Motivation to Combine:

A PHOSITA, observing the functionalities of Reference A and Reference B, would be motivated to combine them to enhance the video sharing and content creation experience within a social network. The motivation would stem from a desire to allow social network users to:

• Curate and personalize shared video content: Instead of sharing an entire, potentially long video, users would want to share specific, interesting segments. Reference B provides the technical means to define these "virtual clips."
• Present narratives or themes: Combining multiple virtual clips in a specific order, as taught by Reference B, allows for the creation of a more engaging and coherent message than individual clips.
• Efficiently manage storage and bandwidth: Rather than creating a new, duplicated video file for every composite creation, using pointers to existing virtual clips (as would be understood from Reference C and the design principles of Reference B) would be an obvious and efficient solution. This would reduce storage requirements on the server and improve sharing efficiency within the social network.

The steps of Claim 1, such as "selecting (N) saved virtual clips and an order of presentation" and "configuring a (M)th pointer to indicate a storage location for a (M)th saved virtual clip," directly align with functionalities present in multimedia editing tools (Reference B) and the underlying data management principles (Reference C). Integrating these into a social media platform (Reference A) to enable users to create and share composite virtual clips would be an obvious extension to a PHOSITA seeking to improve user engagement and content customization.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claim 7 (Method to Display a Composite Virtual Clip)

Independent Claim 7 describes providing a storage location for a composite virtual clip file and then iteratively activating links within that file to stream the saved virtual clips to a user's device.

Combination of References:

We can continue to use the prior art references:

1. Reference A: A social media platform with video sharing capabilities. This platform includes functionality for streaming video content to user devices.
2. Reference B: A multimedia editing software or online tool. This tool, when a composite project is opened, plays back the linked segments in the defined order.
3. Reference C: A web browser or media player with playlist functionality. These widely available technologies demonstrate the ability to process a list of links (like a playlist) and sequentially play the associated media.

Motivation to Combine:

The motivation to combine these references for displaying a composite virtual clip is inherent in the desire to play back the content created by the method of Claim 1. A PHOSITA would understand that once a composite virtual clip (defined by pointers to individual virtual clips and their order) is created (as per the capabilities derived from Reference B and C), the natural and obvious next step is to provide a mechanism for users to view it.

• Leveraging existing streaming infrastructure: Reference A already has the capability to stream individual video files. Extending this to stream a series of linked virtual clips would be a straightforward application of existing technology.
• Standard playback paradigms: Web browsers and media players (Reference C) routinely handle playlists and sequential playback of media referenced by links. Applying this well-known paradigm to the composite virtual clips created in a social network environment would be an obvious engineering choice.
• User expectation: Users accustomed to playlists and curated content would expect a seamless playback experience for composite virtual clips.

Therefore, "activating a (P)th link encoded in the composite virtual clip file to stream a (P)th saved virtual clip to a user's device" and repeating this process (as described in Claim 7) would be an obvious implementation detail for a PHOSITA wanting to provide playback functionality for the composite virtual clips created using the method of Claim 1.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claim 13 (Non-Transitory Computer Usable Medium for Making a Composite Virtual Clip)

Independent Claim 13 is a product-by-process claim directed to a non-transitory computer usable medium encoded with a computer program product for making a composite virtual clip, where the program code causes a programmable computer processor to perform the steps of Claim 1.

Combination of References:

• Reference D: A typical computer system with a processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium. This represents the basic hardware environment.
• Reference E: Computer programming principles and best practices. This would include knowledge of how to translate algorithms into computer-readable program code and store them on a non-transitory medium for execution by a processor.
• The combined teachings of References A, B, and C (from Claim 1 analysis) describing the method steps.

Motivation to Combine:

A PHOSITA would understand that any method performed by a computer system is, by its very nature, implemented by computer program code encoded on a computer-readable medium and executed by a processor. The motivation to embody the method of Claim 1 in a computer program product (as claimed in Claim 13) is inherent in the very act of creating software to perform a desired function. It would be obvious to a PHOSITA to take the functionalities for creating composite virtual clips (derived from References A, B, and C) and implement them as a computer program product. This is a standard practice in software development and not an inventive step beyond the method itself.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claim 19 (Non-Transitory Computer Usable Medium for Displaying a Composite Virtual Clip)

Independent Claim 19 is similar to Claim 13, but for the method of displaying a composite virtual clip as described in Claim 7.

Combination of References:

• Reference D: A typical computer system with a processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
• Reference E: Computer programming principles and best practices.
• The combined teachings of References A, B, and C (from Claim 7 analysis) describing the method steps for display.

Motivation to Combine:

Similar to Claim 13, the motivation to embody the method of Claim 7 in a computer program product is self-evident to a PHOSITA. Once the method for displaying composite virtual clips (derived from References A, B, and C) is conceived, it would be an obvious engineering task to implement this method as computer readable program code on a non-transitory medium, causing a processor to execute it. This is a fundamental aspect of software development and would not require an inventive leap.

In summary, the individual steps of creating virtual clips, ordering them, and playing them back sequentially using pointers were well-known in multimedia editing and playback technologies prior to the effective filing date of US10681103. The integration of these functionalities into a social networking environment, while presenting an improved user experience, would have been an obvious extension for a PHOSITA motivated to enhance content creation and sharing options within such networks, leveraging existing technological paradigms.